Things are looking bad; almost nobody supports Ron Paul and knows of Bilderberg Group.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rikriley
My guess is Ron Paul will run as an independent and will take 5% of the total vote thru out The United States Of America. He would more then likely take votes away from the Republicans verses the Democrats. Many will disagree with his platform of beliefs, but Ron Paul has opened the eyes of many who really listen to what he has to say whether they agree or not. Rik Riley


I don't know that I'd rush to that judgement on either statement. He has already stated that he will not run independent if he doesn't get the nomination. As for your other statement, I'd have to see the number of left leaning voters that have the war as their number one concern before I'd make that call. Ron Paul is more anti-war than anybody running on the democrat ticket and I think he'd draw a lot of votes from the left JUST for that reason.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmmeat

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
It will take a coup to restore American democracy. Fascists never give up anything without a fight.

America is a republic, not a democracy. Republic. R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C. NOT a democracy. Talking about coups and fascists when you don't understand the basic concept America was founded on is just plain silly.

Well if you mean a supreme court handpicked by bush, a raped bill of rights and plundered constitution... then i guess you are right



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I never knew that liberty and freedom was snake oil. It says much when the radical left now considers constitutional values "snake oil." I'd rather fall for libertarian snake oil than radical liberal delusions.

Humanitarianism - LOL, yeah, humanitarian to everyone who agrees with the left. For everyone else....they get screwed. Please don't confuse socialism with humanitarianism. A true humanitarian recognizes that part of the ideology is not stealing peoples money to give it to to loyal democratic constituencies.

I would note that I think liberals and conservatives have lost it, but since you decided to insert your liberal ideology in this I responded against it. I would be equally appalled were you a radical republican. By the way, stop using a false dilemma fallacy. It makes your talking points look even worse. Especially because your false dilemma is extremely inconsistent - the "big corporations" are actually in the pocket of both parties.

Populism has failed. The people are getting smarter.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Well, I've got to yell you that I am not suprised - not even a little. We live in a society where the primary concerns of people start with "Is my pizza delivered on time and hot?" and end with "Is my beer cold enough?"

I hate to say it (The truth usualy hurts) but despite the technology, money and standard of living in the U.S. this has to be one of the dumbest nation's on Earth with respect to logic, wisdom and common sense. But again, there is no suprise there because the indoctrination... um, sorry - I meant education - system is designed to make people servile and stupid; and apparently it has been effective.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Ron Paul has my vote.

I'd rather vote for him and make a statement than give me vote to someone who is a puppet



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness


I would note that I think liberals and conservatives have lost it, but since you decided to insert your liberal ideology in this I responded against it. I would be equally appalled were you a radical republican. By the way, stop using a false dilemma fallacy. It makes your talking points look even worse.


I've noticed lately that in practically all of your posts, you point out someone else's supposed fallacies. I'm glad to hear you're doing well in first semester logic class, and hopefully you will continue to master the art of dialectic, argumentative structure, and syllogism analysis while I try to convince people to help make sure no fellow human is without food and medicine.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I am sorry that you do not understand that your arguments amount to logical fallacies. By the way, I taught logic a while ago, its been a while though. I suggest you DO take a logic classes though, as it may help you from using so many logical fallacies to defend your ideology. Yes, as long as they are used I will point them out. I am sorry this upsets you, but I must point out logical inconsistency. This is the equivalent of saying "HA HA! Your pointing out that I have no argument. That's all you can do!" Yes, that is all I can do


Hopefully you will continue to master your spin of socialism in order to justify your ideology while I help try to convince people that everyone has a right to freedom and liberty, and no one has a right to have their money stolen from them. By the way, that would be a...you guessed it...false dilemma fallacy. May I suggest something else instead?

I do not understand why, instead of trying to convert people to your ideology, you do not just go out and do something about it. Tax yourself 80%, write a check to government. Quit your job, go volunteer. Why is it you must force me to do that? If you want to do it so much, go do it yourself.

The radical left loves to create this false dichotomy of claiming everyone who isn't on their side must be for starving people to death and making senior citizens eat dog food to pay for medicine. Unfortunately for them, its completely false - at least for Libertarians (and I would guess for everyone else as well). I want to help the starving and and help senior citizens too. I just know it is not up to me to force my will on others and punish them with the police power of government by taking their money and giving it to causes I support. I recognize people should have the innate right to not have their money stolen from them to pay for causes they would not support.

Instead, I say stop stealing peoples money and punishing them for their wealth and let them donate to the cause they support. Let charity, and not government, provide for those who need it. It's already happening, but doesn't happen as much as it should exactly because the radical left is too busy stealing my money to spend it on socialist programs and the radical right is too busy stealing it to fight foreign wars.

The liberal welfare state is just as destructive as conservative attempts to legislate morality and turn this republic into a theocracy.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness


I am sorry that you do not understand that your arguments amount to logical fallacies.


In this, you are terribly mistaken. I realize you have the obvious habit of accusing everyone who disagrees with you on practically any subject of using fallacies (which in itself is an ad hominem), but just because you claim something, it does not make it so.


By the way, I taught logic a while ago, its been a while though. I suggest you DO take a logic classes though, as it may help you from using so many logical fallacies to defend your ideology.


Interesting. Especially considering the fact that I have a Master's Degree in Philosophy, and have taught Logic at the university level on and off for quite a few years, as well as Ethics, and other philosophical subjects.



Yes, as long as they are used I will point them out. I am sorry this upsets you, but I must point out logical inconsistency.


I'm not upset at all. Amused perhaps, but certainly not upset.




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


You should review what "logical fallacy" actually means and what "ad hominem" actually means. If you consider the statement that you are using fallacies to be ad hominem you are not only wrong, but you are committing a fallacy. A fallacy simple means that the precepts of your argument do not equate to the conclusion you have provided. To take on such an authoritative tone on all things philosophy, I assumed you knew that. If you consider the fact that your precepts to not match a conclusion to somehow equate to a attack on the basis of a persons characteristics, I can offer no help. You are quite simply factually wrong, and it could be proven with any cursory examination what "logical fallacy" actually means.

I am horrified that any university would let someone with a masters degree be on the faculty. Please let me know what university does this, as I want to make sure I don't apply to them for a PhD. Unless you mean being a lecturer, which I - and everyone else in the world with a masters degree - could do. However, since the pay is horrible and you are treated like trash for only being a lecturer, most people only bother when they are forced to. In my case, I only bothered when I had no choice as part of the degree.

But I know it is much easier to talk about my use of fallacies rather than acknowledge your entire "argument" consists of a inaccurate false dilemma fallacy.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Damn, I had to scroll to the top to find out what the topic was. Can we get back to it please?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
reply to post by rikriley
 


I agree. I think if Paul runs as an independent, he will do similar damage to the Republicans that Nader did to the Democrats the last 2 elections.

The whole Ron Paul thing sort of bothers me, especially that so much of his support comes from young voters. Before he died, Dr. Timothy Leary wrote a very good essay which bemoaned the fact that young people in the USA are becoming more and more conservative. This changes the dynamics because, since the 1960's, young voters have been sympathetic to the Left, and *in* the 1960's, were radical leftists and revolutionaries.

Ron Paul's Libertarianism has introduced far rightwing concepts that many young people are supporting. As a leftist and as an old hippie, I share Leary's concerns over this.


This is,in fact, very true, the next generation, my generation, is by far more conservative then the past few generations. In fact I would go as far as to say that this generation has been or will be the most conservative generation since BEFORE the 1950's! ...

And here is what I find very dangerous about this.

There is a beliefe, I found it and firmly believe in it from several books and essays I have read. The belief is simply that before great turmoils, wars, death and revolutions the generation that partakes in it will move from the far right to the far left, or the far left to the far right. A complete reversal of the current norms by which society holds. If our current leading generation was far left hippy revolutionaries, and the generations inbetween the 1950's-80's where complacent left leaning people (which they where .. even the Republican party is liberal in my eyes) .. this generation, seeing a huge turn to conservatism and even reversal of leftist policies, should be conservative militant revolutionairies.

The entire thought process of society would slowly be changing.. people of my generation, born through the 80's and into the 90's, are seeing the deep flaws in society, in government, in our political system and .. in the last generation.

But this is not evidence that Republicans have the best propaganda either, imo, because the population that despises BOTH parties is growing. Libertarianism is growing, not enough to take the election.. but with growing economic woes to worry about, at the brink of recession, .. who do we blame? .. We blame our hippy fathers who led us down a path of increased socialistic ideas that have no place within this government, the pandering not only to poor individuals who give nothing to society, but megga corporations alike .. Do not forget, todays Republicans where yesturdays hippies.. the ideas are still there, the socialistic nature is still there.. I would advise people to ask their parents about their 20's and what they did.. my bet is many where at the demonstrations, many supported the leftist ideas, smoked the pot, went to woodstock, served in Nam, and may very well now consider themselves loyal Conservatives.

But what do they conserve? .. Aside from big business? .. They surely don't give a damn about conserving our national boundries do they? No. They don't give a damn about our economy either, do they? .. Outsourcing, inflation, "war on terror" .. These are not conservative ideas. These are not Libertarian ideas, which is why the Republicans despise Ron Paul, hes not a Conservative.

But my generation, this up coming generation, is seeing the largest rising of Libertarians, and Ron Paul will sit on the Libertarian ticket. Think of the millions of dollars he has, that he is not wasteing in the primaries? .. When hes running for President on a 3rd party, he will have more money then any other candidate.

Society is flawed, the government is flawed, our financial institutions are flawed, our places of learnign are flawed, the socialistic nature of the over sized government is flawed, and the rapeing of states rights by the beast that is the Federal Government is one giant flaw.

I hope people of your age understand where I am coming from ML .. You will get a social security check. Most baby boomers will.

I will not.

Neither will any one else born in the 80's.

Government hands stole the funds, did not add enough adequetly, or give it away to degenerates and non-nationals.

In my opinion, the rising TRUE conservatism, libertarianism, is a signal to the ending of an age, and the begining of another.. and the terrible events that may follow with it.. I can only hope at the very least, we can dismantle and destroy all the horrific damage inflicted upon the Republic by misquided liberalism through the past 100 years.. however the Republic may well be dead and gone.

If my post seems a bit scattered I had to write it in intervals while at work. I also blame my bad spelling on that as well.
But hopefully you get where I am coming from....



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness


But I know it is much easier to talk about my use of fallacies rather than acknowledge your entire "argument" consists of a inaccurate false dilemma fallacy.



The fallacy is yours, "brother". After all, I didn't construct a formal argument, I simply gave my opinion of Ron Paul, after which you seemed inspired to chime in.

Since you do not seem to understand the difference between a formally contructed argument and conversational opinion given on the Internet, please inform me what university you were instructed at, as I'll make sure not to apply there when pursuing my Ph.D.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I can certainly understand your concerns. What I find most interesting, however, is that the rest of western, advanced world is moving in the *opposite* direction, and is prospering. We, on the other hand, have been moving further and further to the right, and as a result are in decline.

This of course is just food for thought, but worthy of thought anyway. Take France as an example. Certainly not a utopia, I will concede. Nevertheless, their Parliament has a Socialist majority, and has been that way for sometime. They now lead the western world in preventative health care, while we are way *way* behind. The average life expectancy of a Frenchman is higher than ours, even though the average Frenchman smokes 2 packs a day, drinks a lot, and has an eating habit reminiscent of Henry VIII.

I try not to be close-minded, and will consider Libertarian ideas if they can be shown to work. However, if they don't they should be discarded. The same holds true with all other politico-economic theories, which includes even mine, as well as the French, the Canadians, and the Spaniards. The first question, I suppose, would be "Who is using which types of systems, and which ones are working?".



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I dont know but something tells me Ron Paul could just be a joke directed at the Conspiracy, Militia, Constitutionalist, Bill of Rights part of society. 911 was so blatantly an inside job with false flag written all over it yet Ron Paul somewhat backed down and got somewhat nervous when asked the question about 911 in a presidential debate. He handled it well and tried to keep the focus on "the issues". I dont know how I know it but he is either willingly part of the joke and mocking of the groups mentioned above or he is genuinely a good gullible guy thats being used unwillingly or unknowingly.


Its merely just what I observe and feel about Ron Paul and doesnt have any basis in fact. Some of us all know how the hidden hand of power like to stick things in our face and laugh



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 




I can certainly understand your concerns. What I find most interesting, however, is that the rest of western, advanced world is moving in the *opposite* direction, and is prospering. We, on the other hand, have been moving further and further to the right, and as a result are in decline.


How is this possible when true conservatism is not in power? ... Both parties support the wars, they both voted to pass the laws against our rights, like the forsaken Patriot Act ...

What is the difference between Republican and Democrat? ...

Taxes. They both support standing socialist social plans, only Dems wish to increase it. The differences are.... menial ..

As for the rest of the industrial world, seeing as there is no gauge to say .. its hard to tell .. but if you look at France, the UK.. other places where the socialist governments are failing, you can see the peoples anger. Health care underfunded and stressed out, increasing social stress with immigration, usurps over the economy.. I defently don't see the world going further left.



They now lead the western world in preventative health care, while we are way *way* behind.


FUnny we both use France.

Anyways, I would simply point to the riots, which occured for two major reasons, issolated immigrant populations, and workers rioting because without the heavy handed socialist law over employment, many would be without work. The current laws essentially make it impossible for an employee to be fired. Then there is the high tax arguments to fund the vast healthcare and social programs when France's economy has been in a slump for quite some years with unemployment rising.

Why do you think France just loves the EU?




I try not to be close-minded, and will consider Libertarian ideas if they can be shown to work. However, if they don't they should be discarded.


I agree..... and I honesty do not think they WILL work .. because the last time they where implemented was when the constitution was signed, and true Libertarianism failed a few decades later, disapeering after the Civil War.

I am sure, a hybrid system of Libertarianism and social liberalism could be found.. so long as the national government is strict Libertarian constitutionalist.... I don't care what the States do, if they want to be Communist I could care less, but the Fed must represent the constitution and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I'm glad you continue to derail the thread by continuing your false dilemma fallacy. I didn't know logic was not allowed on the internet. Duly noted!

Now, back on TOPIC....

Ron Paul could never win, and so I would not expect the "average person" to know about him. It will take some time for the pendulum, as it were, to shift away from the democrats and republicans and into viable third parties. Libertarianism is not currently a viable third party, and will not be for some time. It will require a breakdown of the institutional and and legal barriers put in place to allow any third party in. Currently, it's just not going to happen.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thetruth777
 


In a big part its because the evidence does not support your conclusion. Every generation has had Alex Jones feeding off of false fear and fear mongering.

In the case of older more mature people they know the truth and are not interested in the inevitable rebellious causes of the youth that come along every generation. The only difference between now and the similar movements in the late 1960's and the early 1970's is the standard of living is much higher for everyone. We live longer, we make more money, most own a home and life in general is much easier as menial labor is replaced with machinery and computers.

Alex Jones and his ilk are a well known phenomenon too us and of no interest. We know his misguided followers will awaken some day and his influence will return to zero where it belongs.

Anytime you go to the extreme on any subject its time to take a hard look at those who are pulling the strings because they are either mad or they are using people knowing their claims are false all along.

Yes there are bad people in power and groups of bad people in power. No there is no Grand Conspiracy uniting them all. Think for yourself and don't let Jones do your thinking for you. Every subject has two extremes and the truth generally lies in the middle somewhere.

The sky is not falling. The economy is not even close to collapsing. Bush will be gone shortly as will his influence. Most rich and influential people are not monsters. Giving money to Jones will not change the world. Screaming on a loudspeaker and people making a nuisance of themselves will only get them ridicule.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Once Ron Paul stated that he would not reopen or investigate 9/11, he lost my support. Talk about biting the hands that support you.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
Well if you mean a supreme court handpicked by bush

The President only nominates justices, the Senate appoints them.

Only TWO Justices on the SC were nominated by Bush.
...TWO were also nominated by clinton.

So ... you're waaaaaaaaay off. You're not from around here, are you?


a raped bill of rights and plundered constitution...


Cite your source, and list how these documents were 'raped' or 'plundered.'

You can't.

Knowledge is power. Get some.

Your pal,
Meat.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmmeat
 




Cite your source, and list how these documents were 'raped' or 'plundered.'


*sigh* .. if it is against you opinion one must cite sources, yes? In the opinion of MANY, though not all, various laws passed would be against the constitution.

In my opinion almost every thing the Federal government passes is against the constitution, as most are aimed at individuals, corporations, or other areas, like education, that are supposed to be solely in the hands of the State.

I would also consider acts, such as the Patriot Act I and II to be a blunt "plundering" of individual, and state rights.

I would not cite or point out any specifics to you, as your politics obviously would not allow that, but roughly the entire document over steps the Federal Governments official place of business.



Knowledge is power. Get some.


Get over your self, and your arrogant attitude, then come back for a discussion.





new topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join